Following are a number of back-translations of Matthew 22:15:
Uma: “From there, the Parisi people went away from the House of God. They made-plans, looking for an idea of how they could prompt [lit., bait] a mistake in Yesus’ words answering their questions.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “So-then the Pariseo left and they planned as to how they could trap Isa in his words.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And then Jesus left the Pharisees because they were deciding together about how they could trap him in speaking so that they might have something to accuse him of.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Then the Pharisees went-away and went to make-agreement as to how they would question Jesus so that if he had an answer, that would be a basis-for-their-filing-charges against him.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “The Pariseo who were listening there left to discuss how they could snare(fig.) Jesus in what he was saying.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “The Pharisees made plans about how to throw to the ground what Jesus spoke so that they could accuse him afterwards.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
The Greek that is a transliteration of the Hebrew Pərūšīm and is typically transliterated into English as “Pharisee” is transliterated in Mandarin Chinese as Fǎlìsài (法利賽 / 法利赛) (Protestant) or Fǎlìsāi (法利塞) (Catholic). In Chinese, transliterations can typically be done with a great number of different and identical-sounding characters. Often the meaning of the characters are not relevant, unless they are chosen carefully as in these cases. The Protestant Fǎlìsài can mean something like “Competition for the profit of the law” and the Catholic Fǎlìsāi “Stuffed by/with the profit of the law.” (Source: Zetzsche 1996, p. 51)
In Finnish Sign Language it is translated with the sign signifying “prayer shawl”. (Source: Tarja Sandholm)
Scot McKnight (in The Second Testament, publ. 2023) translates it into English as Observant. He explains (p. 302): “Pharisee has become a public, universal pejorative term for a hypocrite. Pharisees were observant of the interpretation of the Covenant Code called the ‘tradition of the elders.’ They conformed their behaviors to the interpretation. Among the various groups of Jews at the time of Jesus, they were perhaps closest to Jesus in their overall concern to make a radical commitment to the will of God (as they understood it).”
God transcends gender, but most languages are limited to grammatical gender expressed in pronouns. In the case of English, this is traditionally confined to “he” (or in the forms “his,” “him,” and “himself”), “she” (and “her,” “hers,” and “herself”), and “it” (and “its” and “itself”).
Modern Mandarin Chinese, however, offers another possibility. Here, the third-person singular pronoun is always pronounced the same (tā), but it is written differently according to its gender (他 is “he,” 她 is “she,” and 它/牠 is “it” and their respective derivative forms). In each of these characters, the first (or upper) part defines the gender (man, woman, or thing/animal), while the second element gives the clue to its pronunciation.
In 1930, after a full century with dozens of Chinese translations, Bible translator Wang Yuande (王元德) coined a new “godly” pronoun: 祂. Chinese readers immediately knew how to pronounce it: tā. But they also recognized that the first part of that character, signifying something spiritual, clarified that each person of the Trinity has no gender aside from being God.
While the most important Protestant and Catholic Chinese versions respectively have opted not to use 祂, some Bible translations do and it is widely used in hymnals and other Christian materials. Among the translations that use 祂 to refer to “God” were early versions of Lü Zhenzhong’s (呂振中) version (New Testament: 1946, complete Bible: 1970). R.P. Kramers (in The Bible Translator 1956, p. 152ff. ) explains why later versions of Lü’s translation did not continue with this practice: “This new way of writing ‘He,’ however, has created a minor problem of its own: must this polite form be used whenever Jesus is referred to? Lü follows the rule that, wherever Jesus is referred to as a human being, the normal tā (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential tā (祂) is used.”
In that system one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and one for natural elements, non-liquid masses, and some spiritual entities (one other is used for large animals and another one for miscellaneous items). While in these languages the pronoun for spiritual entities used to be employed when referring to God, this has changed into the use of the human pronoun.
Lynell Zogbo (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 401ff. ) explains in the following way: “From informal discussions with young Christians especially, it would appear that, at least for some people, the experience and/or concepts of Christianity are affecting the choice of pronoun for God. Some people explain that God is no longer ‘far away,’ but is somehow tangible and personal. For these speakers God has shifted over into the human category.”
In Kouya, God (the Father) and Jesus are referred to with the human pronoun ɔ, whereas the Holy Spirit is referred to with a non-human pronoun. (Northern Grebo and Western Krahn make a similar distinction.)
Eddie Arthur, a former Kouya Bible translation consultant, says the following: “We tried to insist that this shouldn’t happen, but the Kouya team members were insistent that the human pronoun for the Spirit would not work.”
In Burmese, the pronoun ko taw (ကိုယ်တော်) is used either as 2nd person (you) or 3rd person (he, him, his) reference. “This term clearly has its root in the religious language in Burmese. No ordinary persons are addressed or known by this pronoun because it is reserved for Buddhist monks, famous religious teachers, and in the case of Christianity, the Trinity.” (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff. )
In Thai, the pronoun phra`ong (พระองค์) is used, a gender-neutral pronoun which must refer to a previously introduced royal or divine being. Similarly, in Northern Khmer, which is spoken in Thailand, “an honorific divine pronoun” is used for the pronoun referring to the persons of the Trinity (source: David Thomas in The Bible Translator 1993, p. 445 ). In Urak Lawoi’, another language spoken in Thailand, the translation often uses tuhat (ตูฮัด) — “God” — ”as a divine pronoun where Thai has phra’ong even though it’s actually a noun.” (Source for Thai and Urak Lawoi’: Stephen Pattemore)
The English “Contemporary Torah” addresses the question of God and gendered pronouns by mostly avoiding pronouns in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (unless God is referred to as “lord,” “father,” “king,” or “warrior”). It does that by either using passive constructs (“He gave us” vs. “we were given”), by using the adjective “divine” or by using “God” rather than a pronoun.
Some Protestant and Orthodox English Bibles use a referential capitalized spelling when referring to the persons of the Trinity with “He,” “His,” “Him,” or “Himself.” This includes for instance the New American Standard Bible or The Orthodox New Testament, but most translations do not. Two other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are the closely related Indonesian and Malay. In both languages this follows the language usage according to the Qur’an, which in turn predicts that usage (see Soesilo in The Bible Translator 1991, p. 442ff. and The Bible Translator 1997, p. 433ff. ).
Living Water is produced for the Bible translation movement in association with Lutheran Bible Translators. Lyrics derived from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®).
Then represents the beginning of a new passage. Translators should probably not use a word that would make readers think this dispute with the Pharisees followed straight on from the discussion with the chief priests that ended at verse 14. In English many translations drop it, for example Good News Translation and Barclay. Others say “Some time after that.”
The Pharisees contrasts with Mark, who has “Some Pharisees and some members of Herod’s party” (12.13). Moreover, for Matthew the chief priests of verses 21.23, 45 are now forgotten. Of course, probably not all the Pharisees were involved as the Pharisees could indicate. Most translators have “some Pharisees.” For Pharisees see 3.7.
Went has been translated as “went off” by Good News Translation. The meaning is not that they went to some particular place, but rather that they got together for a meeting. Translators might say “met together” or “left to meet.”
Took counsel how to entangle him: in keeping with its translation principles, Good News Translation substitutes the proper name “Jesus” for the pronoun him when a new section is introduced. In the Greek text he is last mentioned by name in verse 1.
Took counsel translates a Greek expression which implies mutual participation in the making of a plan (see New Jerusalem Bible “to work out between them”), which is most simply expressed in English as “made a plan” (Good News Translation; New English Bible “agreed on a plan,” and New International Version “laid plans”). Since the plans are against someone, it may be more appropriate to translate “made a plot” (An American Translation) or “plotted” (Moffatt). New American Bible focuses upon the initiation of the action: “began to plot.”
Entangle (Good News Translation “trap”) translates a verb which literally means “lay a snare”; in the New Testament it is used only here, and obviously in a figurative sense. Mark narrates the same event by the use of a different verb. It can be rendered also as “catch him out” or “trick him into saying something that would be bad for him.”
In his talk is more literally “by a word.” The reference may be either to the verbal attacks (that is, questions) which will be directed against Jesus, or to the answers which Jesus will give to these questions. Good News Translation, New English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and New International Version suggest that the trap relates to Jesus’ answers to their questions. Others choose to be ambiguous: “in argument” (An American Translation, Phillips), “in talk” (Moffatt), and “a verbal trap” (Barclay). On the other hand, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch is in agreement with the exegesis of Good News Bible: “how they could entice Jesus into a trap with a leading (or, a catching) question.” Those translators who follow the exegesis of Good News Bible and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch can use an expression such as “how they could use questions to catch Jesus out” or “how they could ask questions that would trap Jesus.” On the other hand, those who understand in his talk to refer to Jesus’ reply may have “trap him so he would say something wrong” or “trick him into saying something wrong.” An ambiguous rendering is “trap him in an argument.”
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1988. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.